Why was there no effective pro-war propaganda during Vietnam?

[wimp]

It seems noticeably absent compared to the World Wars that occurred before, and the Middle Eastern wars that occurred after

[Asenath Waite]

It seems noticeably absent compared to the World Wars that occurred before, and the Middle Eastern wars that occurred after

During WWI and WWII there was a credible case that could be made that the US was fighting a defensible war, in WWII we were directly attacked and during WWI because Germany had been directly threatening US shipping, there was a clear objective and people were actually encouraged to sacrifice, participate in the fight which I think added to the sense of seriousness. While the war on terror didn't have that aspect we had been directly attacked and that made for effective propaganda though it eventually became less popular because there was no clear objective.

Vietnam was kind of the worst of all possible worlds. It was an open ended commitment with no clear objective like Iraq, the Viet Cong had never attacked us in dramatic fashion like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 so even in a country as hysterically anti-communist as the 1960s US it was hard to make the case that it was worth the sacrifice and there were no disruptions to daily life except for the least popular one, the draft which radicalized an entire generation against the war.

[darklordoftech]

It seems like Lyndon Johnson was trying to downplay the fact that the Vietnam War was happening.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

It seems like Lyndon Johnson was trying to downplay the fact that the Vietnam War was happening.

It was called a police action.

[vitoNova]

Because hippie chicks were hot.

"We Say Yes to Boys who Say No."

[Vosem]

There was plenty; polls at the time showed most Americans favored the war until 1969-1970, when Vietnamization had already started. The government turned against the war before the people did.

The interesting question here is about the war's memorialization, with it being so demonized in culture (and being the first-ever US war to have never produced a veteran President, with consecutive losers in Gore/Kerry/McCain). This is probably connected to it having been the first war the US could coherently be said to have lost.

But the idea that nobody supported the Vietnam War is a false memory thing. Most people at the time did.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Iraq war was way less popular. It even had the largest protest in world history on all 7 continents against it before it started.

[NYDem]

The Iraq war was way less popular. It even had the largest protest in world history on all 7 continents against it before it started.

“The largest protest in world history” doesn’t really mean anything when a large majority of Americans still supported it. The Iraq War was objectively popular (not talking morals here) especially at the start.

[Sir Mohamed]

It would have done more harm than actually mobilize support for the war effort. The admins of Kennedy and Johnson, particularly latter, preferred to put the focus on domestic policy as that was already a challenging time at home. Lastly, public support for the war was actually above water until the Tet Offensive. Even afterwards, a majority didn't support immediate withdrawal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think it's more what has lasted the test of time - the news media acted broadly positive towards the conflict until Cronkite etc turned in 1968, and there were a slew of pro-vietnam songs that have not survived in collective memory like the protest songs - Ballad of the Green Berets reached number one, for example.